IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v309y2023i2p925-938.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A framework to design game theory-based interventions for strategic analysis of real-world problems with stakeholders

Author

Listed:
  • Bekius, Femke
  • Gomes, Sharlene L.

Abstract

Game theory provides a valuable conceptual framework for developing strategic insight into complex, multi-actor situations and is well-suited for addressing real-world problems. Participatory game theory involves model construction and analysis with stakeholders guided by a facilitator with the aim of examining strategic interactions within real-world problems. Previous work in this field focused often on the analytical insights from game theory models whereas guidance on the design and implementation process of participatory game theory interventions remains under researched. This paper addresses this gap by providing a framework to assist in the design of game theory-based interventions. Here, stakeholders’ decision-support needs are designed according to specific learning levels, as defined by Bloom's taxonomy and triple-loop learning, that the intervention will target. The framework further specifies the design choices for each learning level by comparing the design choices from two case studies of game theory-based interventions in Dutch railway and Bangladesh drinking water contexts. The former involved stakeholders using a game concept identification tool while the latter used game theory-based role-playing games with community and local government stakeholders. This paper describes the value of this framework for structured learning through game theory-based interventions. It includes the facilitator's role and design choices for each learning level related to the knowledge capabilities and activity focus to achieve that learning outcome. Future work will incorporate design inputs from additional learning theories, behavioural game theory and will explore the framework's potential for evaluating game theory-based interventions.

Suggested Citation

  • Bekius, Femke & Gomes, Sharlene L., 2023. "A framework to design game theory-based interventions for strategic analysis of real-world problems with stakeholders," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 309(2), pages 925-938.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:309:y:2023:i:2:p:925-938
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2023.01.046
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221723000826
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ejor.2023.01.046?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Baudry, Gino & Macharis, Cathy & Vallée, Thomas, 2018. "Range-based Multi-Actor Multi-Criteria Analysis: A combined method of Multi-Actor Multi-Criteria Analysis and Monte Carlo simulation to support participatory decision making under uncertainty," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 264(1), pages 257-269.
    2. Green, Kesten C., 2002. "Forecasting decisions in conflict situations: a comparison of game theory, role-playing, and unaided judgement," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 321-344.
    3. Midgley, Gerald & Cavana, Robert Y. & Brocklesby, John & Foote, Jeff L. & Wood, David R.R. & Ahuriri-Driscoll, Annabel, 2013. "Towards a new framework for evaluating systemic problem structuring methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 229(1), pages 143-154.
    4. Pankaj Ghemawat, 1997. "Games Businesses Play: Cases and Models," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262071827, December.
    5. Joyeeta Gupta, 2016. "Climate change governance: history, future, and triple‐loop learning?," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(2), pages 192-210, March.
    6. Rêgo, Leandro Chaves & Kilgour, D. Marc, 2022. "Choice stabilities in the graph model for conflict resolution," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 301(3), pages 1064-1071.
    7. Wang, Lizhong & Fang, Liping & Hipel, Keith W., 2008. "Basin-wide cooperative water resources allocation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 190(3), pages 798-817, November.
    8. Mathew J. Wilson & Max L. Wilson, 2013. "A comparison of techniques for measuring sensemaking and learning within participant-generated summaries," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(2), pages 291-306, February.
    9. Johnson, Michael P. & Midgley, Gerald & Chichirau, George, 2018. "Emerging trends and new frontiers in community operational research," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 268(3), pages 1178-1191.
    10. Pretty, Jules N., 1995. "Participatory learning for sustainable agriculture," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 23(8), pages 1247-1263, August.
    11. White, Leroy & Burger, Katharina & Yearworth, Mike, 2016. "Understanding behaviour in problem structuring methods interventions with activity theory," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 983-1004.
    12. Mingers, John & Rosenhead, Jonathan, 2004. "Problem structuring methods in action," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 152(3), pages 530-554, February.
    13. Mathew J. Wilson & Max L. Wilson, 2013. "A comparison of techniques for measuring sensemaking and learning within participant‐generated summaries," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(2), pages 291-306, February.
    14. Bryant, James W. & Darwin, John A., 2004. "Exploring inter-organisational relationships in the health service: An immersive drama approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 152(3), pages 655-666, February.
    15. Kato, Hironori & Shiroyama, Hideaki & Nakagawa, Yoshinori, 2014. "Public policy structuring incorporating reciprocal expectation analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 233(1), pages 171-183.
    16. Radford, KJ, 1975. "Applications of metagame theory in managerial decision making," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 3(3), pages 303-312, June.
    17. Bryant, James W. & Darwin, John, 2003. "Immersive drama: testing health systems," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 127-136, April.
    18. Franco, L. Alberto & Montibeller, Gilberto, 2010. "Facilitated modelling in operational research," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 205(3), pages 489-500, September.
    19. A Boyd & T Geerling & W J Gregory & C Kagan & G Midgley & P Murray & M P Walsh, 2007. "Systemic evaluation: a participative, multi-method approach," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 58(10), pages 1306-1320, October.
    20. Michael P. Johnson, 2012. "Community-Based Operations Research: Introduction, Theory, and Applications," International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, in: Michael P. Johnson (ed.), Community-Based Operations Research, chapter 0, pages 3-36, Springer.
    21. Martin J. Osborne & Ariel Rubinstein, 1994. "A Course in Game Theory," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262650401, December.
    22. Andreas Diekmann, 1985. "Volunteer's Dilemma," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 29(4), pages 605-610, December.
    23. Khadka, Chiranjeewee & Hujala, Teppo & Wolfslehner, Bernhard & Vacik, Harald, 2013. "Problem structuring in participatory forest planning," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 1-11.
    24. R J Ormerod, 2010. "OR as rational choice: a decision and game theory perspective," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 61(12), pages 1761-1776, December.
    25. Uri Gneezy & Ernan Haruvy & Hadas Yafe, 2004. "The inefficiency of splitting the bill," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 114(495), pages 265-280, April.
    26. Tyran, Craig K., 2010. "Designing the spreadsheet-based decision support systems course: An application of Bloom's taxonomy," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 207-216, February.
    27. Femke Bekius & Sebastiaan Meijer & Hugo Thomassen, 2022. "A Real Case Application of Game Theoretical Concepts in a Complex Decision-Making Process: Case Study ERTMS," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 31(1), pages 153-185, February.
    28. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1986. "Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(4), pages 251-278, October.
    29. Michael P. Johnson & Karen Smilowitz, 2012. "“Community-Based Operations Research”," International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, in: Michael P. Johnson (ed.), Community-Based Operations Research, chapter 0, pages 37-65, Springer.
    30. Rodrigo Lozano, 2014. "Creativity and Organizational Learning as Means to Foster Sustainability," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(3), pages 205-216, May.
    31. John M Bryson, 2004. "What to do when Stakeholders matter," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(1), pages 21-53, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lee, Chien-Chiang & Hussain, Jafar, 2023. "Energy sustainability under the COVID-19 outbreak: Electricity break-off policy to minimize electricity market crises," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Konsti-Laakso, Suvi & Rantala, Tero, 2018. "Managing community engagement: A process model for urban planning," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 268(3), pages 1040-1049.
    2. Alexandre de A. Gomes Júnior & Vanessa B. Schramm, 2022. "Problem Structuring Methods: A Review of Advances Over the Last Decade," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 55-88, February.
    3. Gregory, Amanda J. & Atkins, Jonathan P., 2018. "Community Operational Research and Citizen Science: Two icons in need of each other?," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 268(3), pages 1111-1124.
    4. Gomes, Sharlene L. & Hermans, Leon M. & Thissen, Wil A.H., 2018. "Extending community operational research to address institutional aspects of societal problems: Experiences from peri-urban Bangladesh," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 268(3), pages 904-917.
    5. Johnson, Michael P. & Midgley, Gerald & Chichirau, George, 2018. "Emerging trends and new frontiers in community operational research," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 268(3), pages 1178-1191.
    6. Stephen Harwood, 2021. "Introducing the VIPLAN Methodology (with VSM) for Handling Messy Situations – Nine Lessons," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 34(6), pages 635-668, December.
    7. David Lowe & Louise Martingale & Mike Yearworth, 2016. "Guiding interventions in a multi-organisational context: combining the Viable System Model and Hierarchical Process Modelling for use as a Problem Structuring Method," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 67(12), pages 1481-1495, December.
    8. Edoardo Fregonese & Isabella M. Lami & Elena Todella, 2020. "Aesthetic Perspectives in Group Decision and Negotiation Practice," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(6), pages 993-1019, December.
    9. Annielli A R Cunha & Danielle C Morais, 2016. "Analysing the use of cognitive maps in an experiment on a group decision process," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 67(12), pages 1459-1468, December.
    10. Killemsetty, Namesh & Johnson, Michael & Patel, Amit, 2022. "Understanding housing preferences of slum dwellers in India: A community-based operations research approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 298(2), pages 699-713.
    11. van Antwerpen, Coen & Curtis, Neville J., 2016. "A data collection and presentation methodology for decision support: A case study of hand-held mine detection devices," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 251(1), pages 237-251.
    12. Wang, Yingli & Touboulic, Anne & O'Neill, Martin, 2018. "An exploration of solutions for improving access to affordable fresh food with disadvantaged Welsh communities," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 268(3), pages 1021-1039.
    13. J Bryant, 2007. "Drama theory: dispelling the myths," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 58(5), pages 602-613, May.
    14. Lami, Isabella M. & Tavella, Elena, 2019. "On the usefulness of soft OR models in decision making: A comparison of Problem Structuring Methods supported and self-organized workshops," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 275(3), pages 1020-1036.
    15. Small, Adrian & Wainwright, David, 2018. "Privacy and security of electronic patient records – Tailoring multimethodology to explore the socio-political problems associated with Role Based Access Control systems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 265(1), pages 344-360.
    16. Lami, Isabella M. & Todella, Elena, 2023. "A multi-methodological combination of the strategic choice approach and the analytic network process: From facts to values and vice versa," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 307(2), pages 802-812.
    17. Sydelko, Pamela & Espinosa, Angela & Midgley, Gerald, 2024. "Designing interagency responses to wicked problems: A viable system model board game," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 312(2), pages 746-764.
    18. White, Leroy, 2016. "Behavioural operational research: Towards a framework for understanding behaviour in OR interventions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 827-841.
    19. Ormerod, Richard & Yearworth, Mike & White, Leroy, 2023. "Understanding participant actions in OR interventions using practice theories: A research agenda," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 306(2), pages 810-827.
    20. Harper, Alison & Mustafee, Navonil & Yearworth, Mike, 2021. "Facets of trust in simulation studies," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 289(1), pages 197-213.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:309:y:2023:i:2:p:925-938. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eor .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.